Radfem2012 banning trans people

[allthegoodnamesweretaken]

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

Has anyone seen this? I don't really understand this bigotry against trans gendered people.
If we're trying to make the world a better and equal place through feminism, surely excluding people who also want to do this because of their genitals or the gender they assign themselves is going to make this impossible and is a bit hypocritical?

I am really very divided on this issue. On the one hand I despise Sheila Jeffreys and her brand of feminism and have done for years (spiteful, self-righteous, often dishonest and wilfully ignorant whinyarsery), and I have trans friends, so I dislike transphobia.

On the other hand, I support the rights of people to have the occasional small gathering that is only open to people who agree with the organisers, without being attacked for doing so. The participants at Radfem are not in a position to take away the rights of others or get harmful laws passed. Being unable to attend this event is not going to harm your career prospects. It's not going to hurt anyone else very much to just let the silly moos get on with it and go to the pub instead.

allthe, I don't understand how you can have 'specifically designated' groups without excluding someone?

I would a little take issue with this: 'I don't see the need to publically ban them from attending the conference if they wouldn't want to attend anyway.'

I used to think this too. But the whole situation has become very antagonistic and politicized. A good example, as I said above, is the use of the words 'cis' and 'trans': I get told I am being rude or transphobic if I do not use the word 'cis' to describe myself. You're describing a live-and-let-live approach, but I don't think that is how others approach it.

I wish it were. I wish it were ok to say, look, this conference is going to be about x, y and z. If you want to tak about a,b, and c, that is not what we're doing. But that isn't what happens.

I really noticed this at Reclaim the Night in London last year. You'd think that if someone wanted to be recognized as a woman, they would just turn up and march, and identify as a woman in solidarity with the other women. Instead, part way through a group of people pushed through the march, carrying some kind of red flags or something that made them very visible. They were MtoF transsexuals who felt that the best way to show they were women was to push through a march full of women announcing their solidarity and carrying placards making very personal statements about rape ... and to show they were visibly a different group.

Why on earth would anyone do that?!

I should say, I am sure this is only a small number of people, I'm sure lots of people would never have thought of doing this, but maybe it helps explain why this is not just a one-sided issue.

Cross posted but I agree with yak. As I said earlier on this thread ... I would love to see that.

A starting point to understanding trans take on feminism is to read the transfeminist manifesto I guess?

And the reason for the exclusion is that there have been problems in the past with trans activists attending in order to disrupt proceedings. It's not a random spiteful thing, it's a thing which has been done so that hopefully people can get on with talking about what they want to talk about without disruption.

I haven't read the full thread, but there are trans-abled people who believe that they should be disabled and try and persuade surgeons to cut of healthy limbs etc. They'll also use wheelchairs even though they don't have any mobility problems.

Would people feel that they should be accepted at a disabled event or think they should be offered the same services as disbled people, just because they said they "feel" disable?. Apologies if I'm repeating someone else's point.

Cut half my post off

Which said that of course transfeminist activists who like to disrupt are of course not representative of trans people as a group.

I don't think they are transfeminist activists. I think they are just trans activists. There isn't much evidence of any feminism in their approach.

For a start Nyac as a community I doubt anyone wold even consider asking someone wha their impairement was. If you are implying some kind of mental health issue then that I would suggest is perfectly acceptible to me as I would want and try to be inclusive. I like oppertunities not barriers.

It's like in fight club when helena bonham carter goes to the testicular cancer support group.

Obviously just not the thing to do!

I don't understand why people have a problem with that.

I'm not implying anything, certainly nothing about mental health.

I asked whether the disabled community would accept someone who chose to claim to be disabled and wanted the rights and benefits that go along with that to enter their spaces and lead the arguments. They'd also argue that "cis" disabled people were privileged over trans disabled because cis disabled people's bodies coincide with their internal view of themselves.

BTW this isn't a hypothetical, transabled people do exist.

I would not think someone who pretended to be disabled was 'weird'. I would think they were ill, and upsetting, and I would wonder why.

There is a distinction here, however - even though lots of people both transsexual and radical feminist don't like it - in that pretending to be disabled is not recognized as anything but a condition in need of treatment, whereas having surgery and/or living as the opposite sex is validated in a way that reinforces the most binary and restrictive views of gender.

If my DD says she feels like a boy will she be able to go to eton and then join the bullingdon club?

No?

I think your DD had a lucky escape being a girl, SQ!

Great post kim totally agree with all of that.

My personal view is that I think people should do what they need to do in order to get by in our society. I have no beef with individuals presenting however they want.

I do feel though that when talking about things like street harrassment of a sexual nature when growing up I want to talk about it with people who will understand that - who have experienced similar or had friends who did or that feeling of being at risk of it or whatever. It's just a deep feeling that I have.

The types of maltreatment trans people get is not the same as teenage girls get. You see I would happily talk to a FTM trans about these types of things (if they wanted to!) as they would understand what it was all about having been there themselves.

There are all sorts of people being oppressed in ways we could never even have imagined.

Trans can only exist because of the fundamental misogyny in our society that believes that being a human female is meaningless and men's reality is the only reality, including the reality that some men have that they are really women.

I wasn't going to post here because I don't feel I know enough about it. But how are this group going to discriminate between the sexes. Give people some sort of medical test to determine what they are. It is now getting beyond ridiculous.

kim - no, no problem. I would support them if I could and if they wanted it.

Radical feminists mostly think it is good to ignore sterotypical gender expectations, as I understand it.

Btw, I don't quite get this bit, kim:

'I do think feminism has a role to play in the dismantling of gender stereotypes - both sexes are equally guilty of defining people by what they should and should not do. You only have to look at the hassle men get (from both sexes) if they do stuff not associated with that gender. It's exactly the same hassle women get (from both sexes) if they do the same.'

I am absolutely sure feminism has a huge role to play in dismantling gender stereotypes, but how does that have to do with men and women both getting stereotyped? Isn't it a pretty fundamental aspect of feminism, to recognize and object to that?